DWI, Campus Police and the Establishment Clause in North Carolina

Yesterday, we discussed the authority of campus police as state universities, such as UNCC, and community colleges, such as CPCC. However, private universities are also permitted to have campus police pursuant to the Campus Police Act in Chapter 74G of the North Carolina General Statutes. The purpose of the Act is to provide police protection at “institutions of higher education” and to make sure that “this protection is not denied to students, faculty, and staff at private, nonprofit institutions of higher education originally established by or affiliated with religious denominations.” (G.S. 74G-2) Under the Campus Police Act, a university may operate a police force with the approval of the Attorney General.

In 2011, the North Carolina Supreme Court issued an opinion in State v. Yencer, where a defendant charged with DWI by the Davidson College campus police challenged the operation of the Davidson College campus police department as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In Yencer, the defendant was arrested for DWI by the campus police on a street adjacent to the campus. The members of the Davidson College campus police were commissioned by the Attorney General pursuant to G.S. 74G-2.

The evidence at trial showed that Davidson College is affiliated with the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America. The trial court also considered Davidson’s statement of purpose and any religious-based requirements for students. The trial court concluded that “although Davidson College is religiously affiliated, it is not a religious institution within the meaning of the First Amendment.” The defendant appealed the trial court’s decision to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

The court of appeals conducted a three-prong analysis pursuant to the United States Supreme Court case, Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971).

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

If a statute fails to meet any of the three prongs, it violates the Establishment Clause and is unconstitutional. The court determined that the prong at issue was the third: “the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.” In looking at this issue, the court stated that it was bound by two North Carolina Supreme Court cases, State v. Pendleton (1994) and State v. Jordan (2002), which held that the campus police departments of Campbell University and Pfeiffer University violated the Establishment Clause.

The court stated that like Campbell and Pfeiffer, Davidson had a “strong religious affiliation.” The court also noted that Davidson’s statement of purpose includes its commitment to its “Christian tradition.” Furthermore, 24 of Davidson’s 44 trustees and its president must be active Presbyterians, and Davidson students are required to take a course in religion.

Therefore, the court of appeals held that the operation of the Davidson College campus police violated the Establishment Clause. However, the court acknowledged that if it were “starting afresh, without the benefit or burden of precedent in Pendleton and Jordan, there [was] evidence in the record to show that Davidson College is not a religious institution for Establishment Clause purposes.” The court went on to urge the North Carolina Supreme Court to review its decision, which it did in 2011.

In its opinion, the North Carolina Supreme Court also conducted the three-prong analysis under Lemon. The Court acknowledged that the defendant did not contest the first prong of the test, that the statute had a “secular legislative purpose.” In examining the second and third prongs, the Court stated that the US Supreme Court had provided the following guidance:

If an institution is so “pervasively sectarian,” that governmental benefits cannot be directed primarily toward neutral, nonreligious purposes, then the benefit likely would advance religion in a manner inconsistent with Lemon.

Furthermore, “[t]he Supreme Court has also considered whether the aid ‘result[s] in governmental indoctrination; define[s] its recipients by reference to religion; or create[s] an excessive entanglement.’”

The Court acknowledged that although Davidson College’s statement of purpose references its Christian tradition and the president and some trustees are required to be Presbyterian, the students are admitted regardless of their religious beliefs and are not required to attend religious services. Furthermore, the religious course required of students is only one course out of 32 courses which students must complete for graduation, and the Presbyterian Church is not involved in the administration of the college nor does it own the land on which the college is located.

Before beginning its Lemon analysis, the Court noted that the statute it was analyzing in this case was different than those analyzed in Pendleton and Jordan, which were decided before the Campus Police Act was enacted. In applying the Yencer findings of fact to the Lemon test, the Court stated that the “‘nature of the aid that the State provided’ in certifying the Davidson College Campus Police is secular” because the campus police was enforcing state and local laws, not any religious laws.

Moving on to the second prong, the Court stated that “the delegation of governmental power here is limited by an ‘effective means of guaranteeing’ that the delegated power will be used exclusively for secular, neutral, and nonideological purposes’” because “the Campus Police Act establishes numerous clear and comprehensive standards that constrain the authority of campus police officers.”

Finally, the Court conducted an analysis of the third prong and determined that its review of “Davidson’s institutional characteristics—its secular purpose, faculty, students, curriculum, and management” made clear that “religion is not ‘so pervasive that a substantial portion of its functions are subsumed in the religious mission.’” The Court relied on the US Supreme Court case Hunt v. McNair (1973) which “involved the grant of aid to secure funding for educational buildings at a religiously affiliated institution of higher education, the Baptist College at Charleston.” In Hunt, the US Supreme Court held that the college’s purpose was not “predominantly religious” even though it noted that the trustees “were elected exclusively by the South Carolina Baptist Convention, certain financial transactions required approval by the South Carolina Baptist Convention, and the College’s charter could be amended only by the South Carolina Baptist Convention.” However, because the faculty and students had no religious qualifications, the Court held that “the primary purpose of the College was secular education and that the grant of aid would benefit the secular, rather than the religious, activities of the College.”

The Court noted that the role of the Presbyterian Church at Davidson College was less than that of the Baptist Church in Hunt and concluded that

As in Hunt, the secular educational purpose predominates at Davidson, and the governmental benefit neutrally advances the purpose of police protection for the campus community. Because the campus police agency benefits Davidson’s secular rather than religious activities, this case does not give rise to excessive entanglement or have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion.

Therefore, the Court held that

The Campus Police Act’s provision of secular, neutral, and nonideological police protection for the benefit of the students, faculty, and staff of Davidson College, as applied to defendant’s conviction for driving while impaired, does not offend the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

If you have been charged with DWI, visit www.rflaw.net for legal help.

I can not say enough about this law firm. They were very professional but had a way of making you feel like you were their only case. They worked so hard for us, kept us informed at all times and we are very pleased with the outcome. Cory was so helpful and straight to the point. Isaac is so professional, polite and works harder than anyone I know. He was always on top of everything and his knowledge on everything about our case was incredible! I highly recommend them and their services!

Kevin Hughes

00:14 31 May 18

I highly recommend this Firm. Cory and Issac were always extremely professional and frequently went above and beyond the call of duty. They worked diligently, always responded quickly and answered my unending questions with grace and patience. I wouldn't hesitate to reach out to them again if I needed legal advice/counsel.

anim reyna

15:01 29 Mar 18

Highly recommended!! I worked with both Corey and Mathew and they are both EXCELLENT attorneys! Delma and Issac the paralegals that work in the office are beyond great! I would recommend this law office to any of my family members, friends and even strangers! I brought two cases to them(one was on going for almost two years) and they worked it all out for me and I was very satisfied with the results and would return back to them

Marissa Jackson

15:27 16 Mar 18

I am grateful to have worked with Cory Rosensteel and his team, I personally worked with Isaac Barker. A great team that really helped me understand and answer any questions I had along he way. Very happy with the way the case settled thanks to them. Will definitely be recommending them to anyone looking for great team.

Adero Burbridge

14:55 29 Apr 18

Rosensteel Fleishman was recommended to us to help with an auto accident. Our attorney Matt Fleishman and his paralegal were very professional and patient when aiding my elderly parents with their situation. Throughout the process, they were always available and kept us abreast of what was happening with the case. I would and have recommended them to friends and family.

Kimberly Morrison

10:45 19 Jun 18

Corey Fleishman and his staff are fantastic. Calls, emails and any questions you have are returned promptly. Every aspect of my case was explained thoroughly to me. I highly recommend this law firm to anyone who has been in an accident. Luis was always patient and informative. Great job on mine and my children's settlement. I HOPE to never have to go thru this process again, but if I do....Rosensteel and Fleishman will get the first call.. Great job everyone!

David Glassman

02:06 17 Jul 18

Excellent communication and customer service. Cory was very easy to talk to each step of the way. Isaac was amazing to work with. He answered every question I had along the way as well. I would highly recommend this firm.

zohaib rizvi

17:00 23 Jul 18

I cannot recommend this law firm highly enough. I am very much satisfied with the way the case settled. Paralegal, Luis, had always kept me updated on my case and at every stage of my case, Mathew thoroughly explained the options and let me take the informed decision; and answered all my questions througout the case as well. Very happy with the settlement, Thanks to Matthew and team. Highly recommended law firm.

Amanda Krawiec

21:10 21 Aug 18

HIGHLY RECOMMEND! My husband was in a car totaling crash where he sustained neck & back injuries as well as a concussion that caused months of issues. The person who hit him did not have insurance. I can’t explain the hell we went through before we found Matt Fleishman and Issac Barker. It was a tricky situation and without their legal help and expertise we would have had even more headache(then he was already experiencing). They knew exactly what steps to take and handled all his dr bills as well as recommended great drs. Issac personally called just to check on us, some of those calls I spent crying to him as a wife seeing her husband suffer. Thankfully my husband recovered and we were able to get our case settled to our liking. If you want results, expert legal advice & kind people handling your troubles I would go here!!! Thank you so much for all the time you put into handling every piece of this horrible experience so we didn’t have to! I can firmly say they went above and beyond!

Shaquille Clary

19:43 09 Sep 18

I had an an amazing experience with the Fleishman group. Tiffany and Luis were excellent and very helpful with my experience. They upheld the highest professionalism at all times and made it a top priority that my case be handled expeditiously. My attorney Corey Rosensteel is an seasoned professional and will take care of your every need. I will use the same team in the future and I recommend them to anyone in need of attorney services. Thanks guys!!!

Nicole Loor

19:35 26 Sep 18

Highly recommend. Very professional and am very happy with everything they did for me!

K. L. Suess

00:28 09 Nov 18

HIGHLY RECOMMEND... Worked with Attorney Matthew Fleishman and Isaac Barker - both are professional, helpful and knowledgeable. Definitely feel they look out for the best interest of their client(s).